Talk

Advanced search

To wonder why women don't rule the world?

(91 Posts)
Imsosorryalan75 Thu 04-Apr-19 18:09:02

When you consider that the majority of crime, violence and war in the world is organised and committed by men.
I wish women had a chance of being in the driving seat for a change.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 20:33:41

so the only women who rise to the top tend to be ones who play by the man-made rules exceptionally well, see Theresa may, Margaret thatcher etc.

What are these rules?

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 20:36:40

Well what are you doing for it OP?
Are you teaching your daughter to be aware of politics or at least what is happening in the world? Making her interested in it? Or yourself for that matter?

PBJtimedance Thu 04-Apr-19 20:37:58

There have been a number of women in power, quite a lot of ancient Egyption queens who had a lot of power and Elizabeth 1st. Ironically they still enjoyed war and did it just as often as the men 🤷‍♀️.

PBJtimedance Thu 04-Apr-19 20:38:51

Oh and queen Victoria who created the largest empire ever.....

Cushellekoala Thu 04-Apr-19 20:42:01

At the moment though the PM is female, head of met police is female, head of london fire brigade is female, medical director for london ambulance is female. I know these women dont rule the world but a generation ago , we wouldn't neccessarily have had women in all these posts. I'm not convinced TM is a great PM but not sure her male predecessor was any better by jacking it in when he didn't get what he wanted, and hiding in his poncy shepherd hut shed....and sadly i can't think of any politician male or female that inspires confidence at the moment. Sorry i know that wasn't the question!!

confusedfornow Thu 04-Apr-19 20:43:36

Because most of the technology we depend on was invented by men. Sorry but that's the truth.

And women are great at lots of things, and men at lots of things too.

Most importantly though, men are stronger and more aggressive, so if women did try to take over, we would be outplayed by men's superior physical strength.

PettyContractor Thu 04-Apr-19 20:46:41

When you consider that the majority of crime, violence and war in the world is organised and committed by men.

Most remarkable things, good and bad, are done by men. Men are more variable than women, extremes are dominated by them.

Random example: when you hear that someone caused a hazard to air traffic, by floating around in a garden chair with helium balloons attached, clutching an air rifle that was supposed to be used to pop the balloons so the chair could descend, the probability that this person will turn out to be a man is 99.999%. Women just don't do random stupid shit like this.

I've just googled, and apparently 90% of all Darwin award winners are male. The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it in a spectacular manner!

darwinawards.com/rules/rules.testosterone.html

Smakee offers an interesting theory: "I just might be able to answer the mystery that the vast majority of Darwin Awards contenders are male. I've studied evolution, and there is an academic theory that males are, in a sense, evolution's playthings. Far fewer males than females are needed to propagate our species. Males can therefore be used as an experimental breeding ground, as we are more dispensible. In most species females tend to be close to the average in physical and mental dimensions, whereas males are seen to display extremes more frequently. With human intelligence this also seems to be the case, as there are many more male geniuses, though this may also be due to the sexism rampant in our societies. On the other end, there are also many more idiots, who often end up qualifying for the Darwin Awards."

Jsmith99 Thu 04-Apr-19 20:46:53

It’s ironic that the left is supposed to stand for equality between the sexes, but both British woman Prime Ministers and the only woman German Chancellor have all led Right wing parties.

Alsohuman Thu 04-Apr-19 20:48:14

The left pays lip service while expecting women to make the tea.

RuggyPeg Thu 04-Apr-19 20:48:34

Confused - Do you think that more things were invented by men because they are more intelligent than women then?

PositiveVibez Thu 04-Apr-19 20:51:30

Society is built for men it’s going to take a long time to turn those attitudes round but we will

I agree with this very much. Women don't rule the world because Patriarchy.

I feel we have recently taken a step backwards were social media and pornography has made women into sexual objects for men to lust over.

I do hope this is changing and I will do my upmost to challenge these attitudes.

PositiveVibez Thu 04-Apr-19 20:52:01

*where

PaperFlowers4 Thu 04-Apr-19 20:52:55

what are these rules?

The rules encompass everything from political economy, to law, to governance, and all the philosophical thought which underpin them which can be traced back for thousands of years— Men invented all of it. Bar a few bits of feminist philosophy which has lately worked its way into the law (like marital rape being made a crime in 1991). Oh, and Ayn Rand.

Aside from that it’s men all the way down.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 20:53:26

If we are talking about politics, physical strength is really not a factor. Though it would be interesting if candidates had to battle for MP posts gladiator style.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision Thu 04-Apr-19 20:54:27

@PaperFlowers4 I was actually curious about a specific example

confusedfornow Thu 04-Apr-19 20:57:44

Ruggy?

No. I never said anything about intellect. But most things we take for granted would never have been invented by a woman because in the early stages at least, women have either not dreamt up the concept, or if they did would never have had the balls (no pun intended) to develop the idea.

Could you see any woman climbing abord the Wright brothers first plane? Not a chance!

I work in the Aviation sector, believe me, it's wall to wall testosterone here. I'd love more women to get into flying, but they're just not interested.

Nothing to do with intellect. Just simple lack of interest.

PaperFlowers4 Thu 04-Apr-19 20:58:13

@PaperFlowers4 I was actually curious about a specific example”

If you want specific examples, then start from Aristotle and keep reading your way up through the centuries. It’s all there.

Collectingcpd Thu 04-Apr-19 20:58:28

Because once they have children many either want to give up work completely or go part time. Last time I checked there weren’t any official part time world leaders, or even part time top positions in top companies. Women could easily rule the world if they chose to prioritize their families to 2nd place..........and we are a very long way off that happening.

RuggyPeg Thu 04-Apr-19 21:19:53

I was being sarcastic. I know it's nothing to do with lower intellect. Your premise is entirely wrong. Women HAVE invented many things but either their idea was appropriated by men and they took the credit for it and/or it hasn't been widely publicised. In addition, historically, women were prevented the opportunity/wherewithal to invent. It's literally got nothing to do with capability. You do know that there's no such thing as lady-brain, right?

Fr3d Thu 04-Apr-19 21:43:32

Err...for the inventors...Amelia Earhart? Grace Hopper? Stephanie Kwolek? Marie Cutie? When DD had to do a project on an inventor, I gave her lots of female ones to choose from grin

As to females ruling the world..or at least countries...They are! Jacinta Arden, Nicola Sturgeon, Angela Merkel, Teresa May, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Dalia Grybauskaitė, Erna Solberg, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, etc etc etc. Just need the likes of America to catch up a bit.

Fr3d Thu 04-Apr-19 21:44:07

Curie not cutie obviously!

confusedfornow Thu 04-Apr-19 22:00:00

FFS!
I never said women didn't invent anything!

Amelia Earheart was flying because two men invented, built and flew the first aircraft.

It's not a slagging match hmm

Hecateh Thu 04-Apr-19 22:00:31

AND because of the way things are set up the 'token' women are in many if not most cases those with a high preponderance of masculine traits. It's not that we need more biological women (although we definitely do) but that we need to value traditional female traits and values (cooperation, compromise, greater good, benefit of future generations) rather than or at least equal to traditional male ones based on physical strength, dominance and aggression.
None of the traits specifically belong with either sex but have a biological and hormonal preponderance that way.

Collectingcpd Thu 04-Apr-19 22:19:57

Fr3d I didn’t say there weren’t any female world leaders, just that there weren’t any part time world leader positions. And as 1/2 the women you mention don’t have children, I think it supports my point. If I didn’t have children I’d be working full time in a more senior position, and I could say the same for many of my female colleagues. I might even sit on the village council (which is made up on 60 yr old + men). But I don’t want to sacrifice family time; men, on the other hand seem very willing to do so.

Imsosorryalan75 Thu 04-Apr-19 22:21:29

"Because once they have children many either want to give up work completely or go part time. Last time I checked there weren’t any official part time world leaders, or even part time top positions in top companies. Women could easily rule the world if they chose to prioritize their families to 2nd place..........and we are a very long way off that happening".

Again, in a male dominated world, the majority of women are expected to take the part time roles, to take on the familial responsibilities, limiting their options for career progression in a full time capacity.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »